Tag: Black

  • On Being a Black Anthropologist (opinion)

    On Being a Black Anthropologist (opinion)

    The one week my Yale graduate Anthropology 101 class spent studying Zora Neale Hurston’s Mules and Men felt like a glass of cool water on a hot summer day. Learning about her scholarship and her refusal to accept the way her white colleagues recentered whiteness through their research on nonwhite people reminded me of the anthropologists who first led me to the discipline.

    But the fact that Hurston was the sole Black woman anthropologist whose work we studied suggested that she was the only Black woman anthropologist whose work was worthy of the ivory tower. As if she was the only Black person committed to using the tools of anthropology to create knowledge about the people relegated to the Global South in ways that are mutually beneficial to the researcher and their interlocutors. Hurston’s singular inclusion in my graduate training paired with the general exclusion of Black and brown scholars aimed to pacify the problematics of anthropology without upending the infrastructure of a discipline that is in crisis.

    As my graduate school years continued, I grew increasingly disillusioned by the idea of a career in academia. Even though I had come to terms with a definition and practice of anthropology that felt useful, identifying as an anthropologist myself felt wrong. How could I proudly claim affinity to a discipline that knowingly promulgated the othering of Black and brown people around the world and within the discipline itself? The answer would come through my research on Black Capitalists, and through my own experience beyond grad school as a Black entrepreneur and Wall Street professional.

    My experience as a Ghanaian American on Wall Street at Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase exposed me to the ways in which Black people use the tools of capitalism to create new outcomes centered on collective thriving. They led me to my definition of what it means to be a Black Capitalist: a Black person who is a strategic participant in capitalism with the intention to benefit from the political economy in order to create social good. What they were doing was complicated, contradictory and, for many, oxymoronic.

    To many, to be a Black Capitalist is to be in an identity crisis. Black studies scholars I’ve spoken to have gone so far as to say, “Black Capitalists don’t exist!” or “It’s impossible for any good to come from capitalism!” I’m usually taken aback by such rebuttals. Because if the Black people I spent hours talking to who identified themselves as Black Capitalists don’t actually exist in real life, are they fictions of my imagination? And is my own experience invalid? Black Capitalists are as real as the version of capitalism we experience today that aims to entrap us all. Black Capitalists are merely trying to get free and help others do the same while facets of society attempt to place limits on how they can narrate, and ultimately live, their own lives.

    Surely, one’s ability to disavow capitalism depends on what continent they are on, or come from. For the Black Capitalists I’ve spoken to who are from Africa, for example, it’s neither a matter of loving capitalism nor wanting to dismantle it. Living in and through capitalism is the reality of trying to build a life in countries that imperialist capitalist forces have already destroyed and continue to exploit. If they are to live their later years comfortably in their homeland, leaving it in the meantime is a requirement. And hustling in the Western world to achieve this dream is so often the method. So for them, much like it was for my mother, who emigrated to America from Ghana with the haunting knowledge that her family was counting on her and that “failure was not an option,” the question becomes: For our own collective thriving, how do we game a system that was founded on us as its pawns?

    So how are Black Capitalists using the tools of capitalism to create new outcomes that allow them to secure the bag and the people they care for? Their methods are as diverse as Black people themselves. But the common denominator between all of their practices is a focus on communal uplift.

    Some are strategizing throughout key industries within corporate America to develop sustainable initiatives that subversively promote diversity, equity and inclusion—especially in the wake of its demise. Some are leveraging grassroots approaches to build community-forward real estate clubs that make the dream of homeownership and passive income possible through the resources—money, credit, knowledge and social connections—that are shared among members.

    Others are teaching aspiring entrepreneurs in their community the fundamentals of effective entrepreneurship and shepherding them through the process of collectively buying successful small businesses formerly owned by white entrepreneurs. Some are using the skills they developed during their tenures on Wall Street to create investment firms on the African continent to help grow pan-African businesses focused on health care, technology and agriculture that generate value for the African consumer. Some of the companies these Black Capitalists are building are worth millions of dollars—even billions. Irrespective of the spaces Black Capitalists occupy, their impact in Black communities globally is invaluable in the fight to close the racial wealth gap that has Black people lagging behind across key wealth indicators including homeownership, small business ownership and financial health.

    But their existence is unnerving to both Black and white people alike, for very different reasons. For many Black people, the very idea of a Black Capitalist makes their toes curl, because when you’ve been on the wrong side of capitalism for so long—as its most valued commodity but never its greatest beneficiary—it’s hard to believe that another relationship to capitalism, or a more equitable version of it on our journey to collective liberation, is even possible.

    And for white people invested in upholding the racial hierarchy that shapes social, political and economic life, they worry and wonder what they are set to lose when Black people are organized and move as one unified body in an economic system that nurtures individualism. Both perspectives reveal the underlying truth that money and our obsession with it is a culture of its own. And this revelation presents a growing problem society has created but has yet to solve: What do we do when money becomes the dominant culture in a society wherein most people don’t have enough of it to live?

    In the face of paralyzing social anxiety about the expansiveness of Black life, anthropology’s superpower lies in its ability to use evidence from the human experience to upend our social scripts and create space for us to dream up new ways of being that are both scalable and sustainable. I realized that being a Black Capitalist and being a Black anthropologist were both seen as oxymorons. I now gravitate toward the spirit of Zora Neale Hurston and other exceptional Black anthropologists. I learned that I can be a different kind of anthropologist who uses the tools of anthropology, like ethnography, oral histories and participant observation, to tell new stories about Black life that are restorative, hopeful and reflective of the power Black people carry.

    But even so, my existence as a Black anthropologist is unnerving to “scholars” who benefit from and are invested in perpetuating the harms of traditional anthropology. To raise the standard of knowledge production to ensure it is created in community with those who play a role in developing it threatens the validity of how scholars have traditionally conducted research and the scholarship that is held in high esteem. It’s damning enough that anthropology is like a snake eating its tail. My presence is the proverbial pain in the discipline’s side—a reminder of the work that is needed to transform the discipline, and realize what anthropology can be, but has yet to become.

    Source link

  • Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    I
    Dr. Tina M. King     n the storied halls of higher education, Black women who ascend to the presidency do so while carrying the weight of history, community, and the unspoken expectation that we will be both miracle workers and scapegoats. Black women in higher education leadership navigate a complex matrix of anti-Blackness and misogynoir —a reality where their expertise is simultaneously appropriated and undermined. Research reveals that more than most Black women executives in predominantly white institutions (PWIs) experience racelighting (racialized gaslighting), characterized by dehumanizing scrutiny. We endure identity taxation, where we are expected to carry the unsustainable burden of single-handedly solving institutional race problems, often where we are the target of the attack while comforting white fragility. Simultaneously, we experience racelighting where people of color receive racialized messages and question their thoughts and experiences. This racelighting is perpetuated by the institution’s willingness to tokenize Black women’s identities for diversity optics while suppressing our agenda for transformative anti-racist praxis. The narrative of Black women’s leadership in PWIs is not simply a tale of individual achievement but also reflects the deep, persistent anti-Blackness embedded in the academy’s very structure.

    The attacks, swift and severe, are often cloaked in the familiar rhetoric of “governance, academic integrity, or collegial concern,” but the subtext is unmistakably racial. They are orchestrated not as a response to policy but as a rebuke of Black authority daring to reshape the institution’s priorities. In such attacks, we are called incompetent, corrupt, and unwilling to do the hard work (lazy), echoing tropes that have long been used to undermine Black people in general and Black women in leadership specifically. The most insidious move, however, is often the elevation of a single Black or Brown person to be the messenger or carrier of the attack, serving as a shield to deflect accusations of racism and to lend legitimacy to the movement or campaign t o disparage and discredit Black women’s leadership.Dr. Regina Stanback StroudDr. Regina Stanback Stroud

    This dynamic is not new. Dr. Patricia Hill Collins (2000), in her foundational work on Black Feminist Thought, describes how Black women in leadership are subjected to controlling images— stereotypes that are deployed to police the boundaries of acceptable Blackness. In the academy, these images manifest as relentless questioning of competence, insinuations of aggression, and the expectation that Black women will perform emotional labor to maintain white comfort. The token messenger, perhaps unwittingly, becomes complicit in this system, their proximity to whiteness granting her temporary power even as it reinforces the very structures that marginalize leaders of color—in other words, they become complicit in using the academic tools of white supremacy to join in the assault on Black women’s leadership.

    What begins to emerge is a spectator sport where people at all levels of influence remain silent in the face of orchestrated attacks. Please make no mistake: silence does not represent neutrality; it represents complicity. By refusing to address the racialized nature of the attacks, the institution is signaling that Black women leaders are ultimately expendable, their contributions contingent upon their willingness to placate white interests and prioritize white comfort. This is the reality of what Breonna Collins (2022) calls “epistemic violence” –the systematic invalidation of Black knowledge and leadership under the guise of procedural fairness.

    Yet Black women leaders have always found ways to resist and reimagine the academy. Drawing on the tradition of Black feminist resistance, we create counterspaces within hostile institutions, mentoring the next generation and insisting on the legitimacy of their vision. We redefine “institutional fit” not as assimilation into white norms but as the capacity to transform the institution in service of justice.

    Despite these acts of resistance and reimagination, the very presence and leadership of Black women in academic spaces often disrupts entrenched power structures and exposes the discomfort many have with authentic Black excellence. A threat to many, Black excellence in leadership prioritizes the needs of marginalized students and communities over the preservation of the status quo.

    While some may wish to uphold privilege and power for themselves, others may be well-intentioned but unable to recognize Black excellence. They may interpret Black leadership as arrogance or see Black Leaders simply as flaunting their positions or being opinionated. Still others may believe they are doing good but fail to recognize their own deep biases. Those who consider themselves allies may suffer fatigue along with Black leaders, but that mutual suffering does not, an ally make. It must be accompanied by one’s willingness to use their white privilege and capital to actively combat anti-Blackness and misogynoir at play.

    Studies of HBCU leadership reveal how Black women executives subvert PWI pathologies through radical self-definition, where we reject white-normed leadership frameworks to implement culturally grounded approaches and ethical care (prioritizing community needs over respectability politics). We create counter-spaces that center Black epistemologies, such as mentorship programs that affirm Black women’s intellectual sovereignty. Black women leaders engage in institutional truth-telling where we document systemic racelighting through critical race methodology.

    True transformation requires more than performative allyship. It demands redistribution of resources, independent accountability structures, and a commitment to centering Black epistemologies in institutional decision-making. There is a growing recognition that Black leadership is not incidental— it is essential to the future of higher education. The time has come for institutions to choose: will they cling to the master’s tools, or will they finally make room for the radical imagination and power of Black women’s leadership?

    Until higher education is willing to confront its foundational anti-Blackness, it will continue to sacrifice its most visionary leaders on the altar of white comfort. The question is not whether another attack will come but who will have the courage to stand in solidarity and say, “Enough.” The future of academia depends on this shift. Ultimately, we must move beyond the white gaze and demand for our pain, and instead, embrace the Black radical imagination and the remaking of power in the academy.

    Dr. Tina M. King is president of San Diego College of Continuing Education 

    Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud is the chief executive officer of RSSC Consulting

    Dr. Jennifer Taylor Mendoza serves as the 13th president of West Valley College.

     

     

     

     

    Source link

  • Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    For the second year in a row, a Black student group at the University of Missouri is facing pushback from administrators over their attempt to hold a back-to-school event with the word “Black” in the name.

    The Legion of Black Collegians, a long-standing Black student government at Mizzou, had planned to host the on-campus Black 2 Class Block Party this week, but the group said in a social media post Wednesday that university administrators had canceled it.

    A university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that Mizzou is “committed to fostering an environment free of unlawful discrimination,” and that the name of the event “suggested it was race exclusive.”

    Likewise, Mizzou President Mun Choi added in a statement that “when holding events using university facilities, student organizations must avoid excluding individuals based on race.”

    This follows a similar dispute last year, when the university changed the name of a similar LBC event from the Welcome Black BBQ to the Welcome Black and Gold BBQ, a nod to the university’s colors. This year, LBC declined to participate, letting university officials know in July.

    Student success experts and advocates for racial minority groups say the tension at Mizzou is just one example of an ongoing change in campus cultures nationwide. As various pieces of anti-DEI legislation take effect in red states and the Trump administration attempts to crack down on practices of so-called liberal indoctrination across the country, many students of color could lose access to vital hubs of cultural recognition, they say.

    “There’s no question that the political context, the messaging from this administration and the confluence of what’s happening at state levels are extremely influential for white universities, who are often public schools that take public money,” said Eric Duncan, a policy director with EdTrust. “We’re not surprised, but we’re disappointed in what’s happening to Black students at Missouri.”

    In addition to publicizing the cancellation, LBC also noted on Instagram that incidents of racism and hate speech on campus are on the rise and demanded that the institution schedule a town hall meeting within 60 days, publicly condemn racial harassment and send out an annual notification explaining the college’s antidiscrimination policies.

    “Let’s be clear,” the student group wrote. “These actions are a deliberate act of erasure … Recreational spaces for students of all identities are CRUCIAL.”

    Choi said the university “will not respond to demands.” A university spokesperson later told Inside Higher Ed that the university is “not aware of increased discrimination against Black students on campus.”

    Amaya Morgan, the current LBC president, said she met with Choi and other administrators to discuss the cancellation on Thursday afternoon—a meeting the university later said was confidential and declined to comment on.

    In an effort to avoid federal scrutiny, universities across the country have canceled events and closed diversity centers following Trump’s ban on race-based programming and activities. A federal judge recently struck down one such order from the Department of Education, but in many cases colleges have already complied. Some institutional leaders have indicated they have few good options except to keep their heads down.

    But for Morgan, the priority is for the university “to have our back.”

    “We know we can’t do anything about the block party now,” she said, adding that racially driven harassment must still be addressed. “Obviously what we’re doing to prevent discrimination right now is not working. So we’re asking, how can we work toward a solution? That is why those demands were listed out like that.”

    Colleges Put ‘a Lot at Stake’

    Decisions to close minority student centers, shut down ethnic group–based organizations and cancel culturally specific events are not new and started before Trump took office. News organizations and nonprofit groups have been tracking such actions, especially in Republican-led states, since the Supreme Court blocked the consideration of race in college admissions in 2023.

    For example, colleges in Utah closed cultural centers and the University of Iowa terminated LGBTQ+ and Latino living-learning communities. Mizzou axed its Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Division in summer 2024 along with certain race-based scholarships and first-year student success programs like the Mizzou Black Men’s and Women’s Initiatives.

    As a Black man who attended two predominantly white institutions, Duncan, of EdTrust, said that by shuttering these parts of campus life, universities are putting “a lot at stake.” For underrepresented students, many of whom are also first-generation, these programs are critical to retention and degree completion, adding that there’s evidence—anecdotal and data-based—to prove it.

    “When Black and brown students and different cultures step onto college campuses, a lot of times they’re looking for signals of inclusivity. ‘Is this a place that I belong?’” Duncan said. “Removing [these welcoming and affirming spaces] not just passively, but by coming out and saying, ‘We don’t support this,’ is a signal to people that maybe this is not a space of belonging for me.”

    Shaun Harper, a professor of education, public policy and business at the University of Southern California, echoed Duncan’s remarks. He pointed to a paper he published in 2013 that showed that it’s critical for Black students at predominantly white institutions to connect and teach one another how to navigate environments filled with microaggressions, racism and loneliness. Black student groups were key to this, the qualitative data showed.

    Harper added that just because something is run by a Black student organization doesn’t make it exclusive to other learners.

    “There’s never been a sign on the Black culture center door that says, ‘Blacks only.’ If white students, Asian students, Latino students and others, Indigenous students, wanted to come to those spaces, they were always welcome,” he said. “The reason why I’m so annoyed is that anybody who has ever attended [an event like Mizzou’s barbecue] knows that they are not discriminatory, divisive spaces. In fact, they’re spaces that are familial.”

    A History of Racial Tension

    As Mizzou’s LBC once again draws attention to what they call a lack of representation on campus, the university is also approaching the 10-year anniversary of protests that rocked the campus and made national headlines in November 2015.

    One student went on a hunger strike to draw attention to racism on campus, and other students camped out on the quad in solidarity. Eventually, the football team joined the efforts. The strike ended when two university leaders resigned on the same day.

    When Inside Higher Ed asked university administrators how they had addressed the campus climate since then, university spokesperson Christopher Ave said, “It is difficult to accurately measure the campus climate.” But he pointed to a record number of applications from prospective students, the increase in the percentage of underrepresented students and an improved retention rate on campus—all of which, he said, “illustrate that students want to attend and continue their education at the University of Missouri.”

    Ave added that calling off the block party doesn’t mean that the university also considers its Black cultural center or LBC as examples of discrimination.

    “This decision was based on the circumstances of this event, which was promoted with a name that suggested it was race exclusive and contrary to [federal civil rights law],” he said. “Each event or program must be considered on its own in context and the decision on this event does not dictate what will happen in any other circumstance.”

    Morgan from LBC declined to comment on whether they were seeking aid from outside groups to hold events like the block party off campus. The primary goal, she said, is to “protect the safety of Black students moving forward.”

    “I’ll be honest, I don’t have a very clear path forward, but I know that as a Legion, we will still continue to do whatever we can to make sure that students are heard and make sure that our identities are heard and seen,” she said. “As a Legion, we have existed for nearly 60 years. Excuse my language, but there’s absolutely no way in hell that we [will] go, especially not under my watch.”



    Source link

  • Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    Mizzou Calls Black 2 Class Event Example of “Discrimination”

    For the second year in a row, a Black student group at the University of Missouri is facing pushback from administrators over their attempt to hold a back-to-school event with the word “Black” in the name.

    The Legion of Black Collegians, a long-standing Black student government at Mizzou, had planned to host the on-campus Black 2 Class Block Party this week, but the group said in a social media post Wednesday that university administrators had canceled it.

    A university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that Mizzou is “committed to fostering an environment free of unlawful discrimination,” and that the name of the event “suggested it was race exclusive.”

    Likewise, Mizzou President Mun Choi added in a statement that “when holding events using university facilities, student organizations must avoid excluding individuals based on race.”

    This follows a similar dispute last year, when the university changed the name of a similar LBC event from the Welcome Black BBQ to the Welcome Black and Gold BBQ, a nod to the university’s colors. This year, LBC declined to participate, letting university officials know in July.

    Student success experts and advocates for racial minority groups say the tension at Mizzou is just one example of an ongoing change in campus cultures nationwide. As various pieces of anti-DEI legislation take effect in red states and the Trump administration attempts to crack down on practices of so-called liberal indoctrination across the country, many students of color could lose access to vital hubs of cultural recognition, they say.

    “There’s no question that the political context, the messaging from this administration and the confluence of what’s happening at state levels are extremely influential for white universities, who are often public schools that take public money,” said Eric Duncan, a policy director with EdTrust. “We’re not surprised, but we’re disappointed in what’s happening to Black students at Missouri.”

    In addition to publicizing the cancellation, LBC also noted on Instagram that incidents of racism and hate speech on campus are on the rise and demanded that the institution schedule a town hall meeting within 60 days, publicly condemn racial harassment and send out an annual notification explaining the college’s antidiscrimination policies.

    “Let’s be clear,” the student group wrote. “These actions are a deliberate act of erasure … Recreational spaces for students of all identities are CRUCIAL.”

    Choi said the university “will not respond to demands.” A university spokesperson later told Inside Higher Ed that the university is “not aware of increased discrimination against Black students on campus.”

    Amaya Morgan, the current LBC president, said she met with Choi and other administrators to discuss the cancellation on Thursday afternoon—a meeting the university later said was confidential and declined to comment on.

    In an effort to avoid federal scrutiny, universities across the country have canceled events and closed diversity centers following Trump’s ban on race-based programming and activities. A federal judge recently struck down one such order from the Department of Education, but in many cases colleges have already complied. Some institutional leaders have indicated they have few good options except to keep their heads down.

    But for Morgan, the priority is for the university “to have our back.”

    “We know we can’t do anything about the block party now,” she said, adding that racially driven harassment must still be addressed. “Obviously what we’re doing to prevent discrimination right now is not working. So we’re asking, how can we work toward a solution? That is why those demands were listed out like that.”

    Colleges Put ‘a Lot at Stake’

    Decisions to close minority student centers, shut down ethnic group–based organizations and cancel culturally specific events are not new and started before Trump took office. News organizations and nonprofit groups have been tracking such actions, especially in Republican-led states, since the Supreme Court blocked the consideration of race in college admissions in 2023.

    For example, colleges in Utah closed cultural centers and the University of Iowa terminated LGBTQ+ and Latino living-learning communities. Mizzou axed its Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Division in summer 2024 along with certain race-based scholarships and first-year student success programs like the Mizzou Black Men’s and Women’s Initiatives.

    As a Black man who attended two predominantly white institutions, Duncan, of EdTrust, said that by shuttering these parts of campus life, universities are putting “a lot at stake.” For underrepresented students, many of whom are also first-generation, these programs are critical to retention and degree completion, adding that there’s evidence—anecdotal and data-based—to prove it.

    “When Black and brown students and different cultures step onto college campuses, a lot of times they’re looking for signals of inclusivity. ‘Is this a place that I belong?’” Duncan said. “Removing [these welcoming and affirming spaces] not just passively, but by coming out and saying, ‘We don’t support this,’ is a signal to people that maybe this is not a space of belonging for me.”

    Shaun Harper, a professor of education, public policy and business at the University of Southern California, echoed Duncan’s remarks. He pointed to a paper he published in 2013 that showed that it’s critical for Black students at predominantly white institutions to connect and teach one another how to navigate environments filled with microaggressions, racism and loneliness. Black student groups were key to this, the qualitative data showed.

    Harper added that just because something is run by a Black student organization doesn’t make it exclusive to other learners.

    “There’s never been a sign on the Black culture center door that says, ‘Blacks only.’ If white students, Asian students, Latino students and others, Indigenous students, wanted to come to those spaces, they were always welcome,” he said. “The reason why I’m so annoyed is that anybody who has ever attended [an event like Mizzou’s barbecue] knows that they are not discriminatory, divisive spaces. In fact, they’re spaces that are familial.”

    A History of Racial Tension

    As Mizzou’s LBC once again draws attention to what they call a lack of representation on campus, the university is also approaching the 10-year anniversary of protests that rocked the campus and made national headlines in November 2015.

    One student went on a hunger strike to draw attention to racism on campus, and other students camped out on the quad in solidarity. Eventually, the football team joined the efforts. The strike ended when two university leaders resigned on the same day.

    When Inside Higher Ed asked university administrators how they had addressed the campus climate since then, university spokesperson Christopher Ave said, “It is difficult to accurately measure the campus climate.” But he pointed to a record number of applications from prospective students, the increase in the percentage of underrepresented students and an improved retention rate on campus—all of which, he said, “illustrate that students want to attend and continue their education at the University of Missouri.”

    Ave added that calling off the block party doesn’t mean that the university also considers its Black cultural center or LBC as examples of discrimination.

    “This decision was based on the circumstances of this event, which was promoted with a name that suggested it was race exclusive and contrary to [federal civil rights law],” he said. “Each event or program must be considered on its own in context and the decision on this event does not dictate what will happen in any other circumstance.”

    Morgan from LBC declined to comment on whether they were seeking aid from outside groups to hold events like the block party off campus. The primary goal, she said, is to “protect the safety of Black students moving forward.”

    “I’ll be honest, I don’t have a very clear path forward, but I know that as a Legion, we will still continue to do whatever we can to make sure that students are heard and make sure that our identities are heard and seen,” she said. “As a Legion, we have existed for nearly 60 years. Excuse my language, but there’s absolutely no way in hell that we [will] go, especially not under my watch.”



    Source link

  • Black fathers should not be perceived as a threat when they show up for their children

    Black fathers should not be perceived as a threat when they show up for their children

    Across the country, Black fathers are too often seen as a threat when they speak up and advocate for their children. And it’s not just in courtrooms and on sidewalks — it’s happening in classrooms, daycares and schools. 

    I’ve spent my career in education and equity leadership, and I know this is part of a larger, troubling pattern. When Black parents — especially men — assert themselves in spaces not designed for them, they are too often perceived as “aggressive.”  

    Their advocacy is sometimes interpreted as “rude,” and their presence is framed as disruption rather than partnership, something that has played out in my own experience as a proud Black father of three.  

    This isn’t about one parent or teacher or even one moment. It’s about what happens when systems designed to support children carry embedded racial assumptions. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    I’ll never forget picking my kids up from daycare during a lice outbreak. My wife and I had no experience dealing with lice, and I asked a few questions — just trying to understand what to expect. Instead of getting reassurance or guidance, I was met with suspicion, even subtle blame.  

    Or the time I raised a safety concern about an emotional child in my son’s class who had a pattern of throwing chairs. Rather than treating my concern as legitimate, it was brushed off — as if I were overreacting.  

    In both cases, my presence and voice weren’t welcomed. They were managed. 

    In a society in which Black men are still fighting to be seen as full participants in their children’s lives, we cannot ignore the role that bias plays in shaping who gets welcomed, who gets questioned and who gets believed. Daycares, schools, courts and society at large must actively affirm and restore the voices of Black fathers, rather than dismiss them. 

    Too often, Black men are portrayed as threats or criminals — rather than as nurturers and protectors. These images become mentally entrenched, shaping public attitudes and institutional responses. This persistent framing contributes to a cultural blind spot that brings confusion to the presence of Black fathers and negatively affects how they are treated in schools, courts and communities. 

    Nationally, for example, Black families are disproportionately reported to child protective services, even when controlling for income or neighborhood factors.  

    Despite this anti-Black bias, Black fathers defy stereotypes every day. Black dads, on average, are actually more involved in daily caregiving than fathers of other racial backgrounds, the National Health Statistics Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes. Yet media representation has not caught up with this reality.  

    As a student pursuing a doctorate in education leadership and policy, I study how identity shapes access to opportunity. And I know that bias against Black men starts early — when we are boys. A 2016 Yale Child Study Center report found that preschool teachers, regardless of race, were more likely to monitor Black boys for misbehavior — even when no misbehavior was apparent. 

    And in Indiana, studies highlight that nearly four out of every five Black children in the state will be investigated for suspected maltreatment. 

    Related: 7 realities for Black students in America, 70 years after Brown 

    These are not just statistical disparities — they’re stories of fractured trust between families and the institutions meant to serve them.  

    I have explored the concept of “mega-threats” introduced by researchers Angelica Leigh and Shimul Melwani — high-profile, identity-relevant events that trigger lasting psychological stress for people who share that identity. Though typically used to describe major public tragedies, these threats can be individual and personal, too. When a Black father sees himself reduced to a stereotype — his parenting undercut, his words distorted — it becomes an embodied threat, one that lingers and works to fulfill the myth that Black fathers are absent. These corrosive interactions run counter to the heroic influence and legacy that Black men have within their communities as warm demanders — men who emphatically build relationships and uphold high expectations. 

    If we want to support children, we must support their families. That means ensuring that early childhood professionals are trained not just in child development but in cultural competence and anti-bias practices. It means separating assumptions from observations when writing reports.  

    And it means reflecting on how language like “rude” or “aggressive” can carry racial undertones that reinforce long-standing stereotypes. 

    In my work as an educator, leader and former coach, I’ve partnered with countless families across race and class lines. What all parents want — especially those from marginalized communities — is the assurance that when they show up, they’ll be heard, not judged. That their questions will be met with respect, not suspicion. 

    If we truly believe in family engagement, we must be honest about the ways our systems still punish the very people we say we want more of. Black fathers are showing up.  

    The question is: are we ready to see them clearly? 

    Craig Jordan is an educator and doctoral student at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College. A native of Gary, Indiana, he writes about equity, identity and systemic change in education. His work has been featured in IndyStar and Yahoo News. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about Black fathers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : The Dirty World of Billionaire Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein: Profits Over People

    Higher Education Inquirer : The Dirty World of Billionaire Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein: Profits Over People

    Leon Black, the billionaire co-founder and former chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management, maintained a financial relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that lasted for years and ultimately contributed to Black’s resignation from the firm. Why should HEI be covering this old story?  Because the theme, of profits over people, is a major theme in the dirty world of business that permeates US higher education. 

    Profits Over People

    Apollo Global Management, the firm Black co-founded, is one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers, with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management across private equity, credit, and real estate. In 2016, Apollo, along with the Vistria Group and Najafi Companies, acquired Apollo Education Group, the parent company of the University of Phoenix, for over $1.1 billion. The University of Phoenix remains under the control of these owners and continues to operate as a for-profit institution.

    Critics of private equity and venture capital in education argue that such firms are driven by short-term profitability rather than long-term institutional quality. This can lead to aggressive marketing, high tuition, cuts to faculty and staff, and diminished student outcomes. In the case of Apollo Global Management’s ownership of the University of Phoenix, concerns have persisted about the potential for cost-cutting and profit-maximizing strategies to undermine the educational mission. For-profit colleges owned by large investment firms have been accused in the past of prioritizing shareholder returns over student success, adding another layer to the public scrutiny of both Apollo and the institutions it controls.

    Ties Between Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein

    Between 2012 and 2017, Black paid Jeffrey Epstein approximately $158 million for what he described as financial advice, including tax and estate planning services. A March 2025 report from the Senate Finance Committee revealed that the total amount transferred to Epstein was closer to $170 million, about $12 million more than previously disclosed. In 2023, Black agreed to pay $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to settle claims that some of his payments to Epstein were used to support Epstein’s illicit operations. Black has said publicly that his association with Epstein was a “horrible mistake” and has emphasized that had he known more about Epstein’s criminal activities, he would have cut ties sooner.

    Although Black has described his relationship with Epstein as limited, records show that Epstein became one of the original trustees of the Leon Black Family Foundation in 1997. Black also contributed a handwritten poem to a 2003 “50th birthday book” for Epstein, an item that included greetings from other prominent figures. In January 2021, following an independent review by the law firm Dechert LLP that detailed the payments to Epstein, Black announced that he would step down as CEO of Apollo Global Management.

    Black has faced several legal challenges connected to allegations of sexual misconduct, many of which reference Epstein. In 2023, “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit claiming she was assaulted by Black at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse; in April 2025, her lawyers sought to withdraw from the case. In another case, accuser Cheri Pierson alleged rape but withdrew her lawsuit in early 2024. A separate suit filed by Guzel Ganieva, which accused Black of abuse and coercion involving Epstein, was dismissed in 2023. Black has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

    Sources

    Business Insider

    The Daily Beast

    ABC News

    Wikipedia – Leon Black

    Wikipedia – Apollo Global Management

    EdSurge

    Republic Report

    Source link

  • AI teacher tools display racial bias when generating student behavior plans, study finds

    AI teacher tools display racial bias when generating student behavior plans, study finds

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    Asked to generate intervention plans for struggling students, AI teacher assistants recommended more-punitive measures for hypothetical students with Black-coded names and more supportive approaches for students the platforms perceived as white, a new study shows.

    These findings come from a report on the risks of bias in artificial intelligence tools published Wednesday by the non-profit Common Sense Media. Researchers specifically sought to evaluate the quality of AI teacher assistants — such as MagicSchool, Khanmingo, Curipod, and Google Gemini for Education — that are designed to support classroom planning, lesson differentiation, and administrative tasks.

    Common Sense Media found that while these tools could help teachers save time and streamline routine paperwork, AI-generated content could also promote bias in lesson planning and classroom management recommendations.

    Robbie Torney, senior director of AI programs at Common Sense Media, said the problems identified in the study are serious enough that ed tech companies should consider removing tools for behavior intervention plans until they can improve them. That’s significant because writing intervention plans of various sorts is a relatively common way teachers use AI.

    After Chalkbeat asked about Common Sense Media’s findings, a Google spokesperson said Tuesday that Google Classroom has turned off the shortcut to Gemini that prompts teachers to “Generate behavior intervention strategies” to do additional testing.

    However, both MagicSchool and Google, the two platforms where Common Sense Media identified racial bias in AI-generated behavior intervention plans, said they could not replicate Common Sense Media’s findings. They also said they take bias seriously and are working to improve their models.

    School districts across the country have been working to implement comprehensive AI policies to encourage informed use of these tools. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft have partnered with the American Federation of Teachers to provide free training in using AI platforms. The Trump Administration also has encouraged greater AI integration in the classroom. However, recent AI guidelines released by the U.S. Department of Education have not directly addressed concerns about bias within these systems.

    About a third of teachers report using AI at least weekly, according to a national survey conducted by the Walton Family Foundation in cooperation with Gallup. A separate survey conducted by the research organization Rand found teachers specifically report using these tools to help develop goals for Individualized Education Program — or IEP — plans. They also say they use these tools to shape lessons or assessments around those goals, and to brainstorm ways to accommodate students with disabilities.

    Torney said Common Sense Media isn’t trying to discourage teachers from using AI in general. The goal of the report is to encourage more awareness of potential uses of AI teacher assistants that might have greater risks in the classroom.

    “We really just want people to go in eyes wide open and say, ‘Hey these are some of the things that they’re best at and these are some of the things you probably want to be a little bit more careful with,’” he said.

    Common Sense Media identified AI tools that can generate IEPs and behavior intervention plans as high risk due to their biased treatment of students in the classroom. Using MagicSchool’s Behavior Intervention Suggestions tool and the Google Gemini “Generate behavior intervention strategies tool,” Common Sense Media’s research team ran the same prompt about a student who struggled with reading and showed aggressive behavior 50 times using white-coded names and 50 times using Black-coded names, evenly split between male- and female-coded names.

    The AI-generated plans for the students with Black-coded names didn’t all appear negative in isolation. But clear differences emerged when those plans from MagicSchool and Gemini were compared with plans for students with white-coded names.

    For example, when prompted to provide a behavior intervention plan for Annie, Gemini emphasized addressing aggressive behavior with “consistent non-escalating responses” and “consistent positive reinforcement.” Lakeesha, on the other hand, should receive “immediate” responses to her aggressive behaviors and positive reinforcement for “desired behaviors,” the tool said. For Kareem, Gemini simply said, “Clearly define expectations and teach replacement behaviors,” with no mention of positive reinforcement or responses to aggressive behavior.

    Torney noted that the problems in these AI-generated reports only became apparent across a large sample, which can make it hard for teachers to identify. The report warns that novice teachers may be more likely to rely on AI-generated content without the experience to catch inaccuracies or biases. Torney said these underlying biases in intervention plans “could have really large impacts on student progression or student outcomes as they move across their educational trajectory.”

    Black students are already subject to higher rates of suspension than their white counterparts in schools and more likely to receive harsher disciplinary consequences for subjective reasons, like “disruptive behavior.” Machine learning algorithms replicate the decision-making patterns of the training data that they are provided, which can perpetuate existing inequalities. A separate study found that AI tools replicate existing racial bias when grading essays, assigning lower scores to Black students than to Asian students.

    The Common Sense Media report also identified instances when AI teacher assistants generated lesson plans that relied on stereotypes, repeated misinformation, and sanitized controversial aspects of history.

    A Google spokesperson said the company has invested in using diverse and representative training data to minimize bias and overgeneralizations.

    “We use rigorous testing and monitoring to identify and stop potential bias in our AI models,” the Google spokesperson said in an email to Chalkbeat. “We’ve made good progress, but we’re always aiming to make improvements with our training techniques and data.”

    On its website, MagicSchool promotes its AI teaching assistant as “an unbiased tool to aid in decision-making for restorative practices.” In an email to Chalkbeat, MagicSchool said it has not been able to reproduce the issues that Common Sense Media identified.

    MagicSchool said their platform includes bias warnings and instructs users not to include student names or other identifying information when using AI features. In light of the study, it is working with Common Sense to improve its bias detection systems and design tools in ways that encourage educators to review AI generated content more closely.

    “As noted in the study, AI tools like ours hold tremendous promise — but also carry real risks if not designed, deployed, and used responsibly,” MagicSchool told Chalkbeat. “We are grateful to Common Sense Media for helping hold the field accountable.”

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on AI, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Black Women Reach Record State Legislative Representation Despite Persistent Gaps at Higher Levels

    Black Women Reach Record State Legislative Representation Despite Persistent Gaps at Higher Levels

    Black women achieved record-high representation in state legislatures and made historic gains in the U.S. Senate in 2025, according to a new report tracking their political progress over the past decade.

    Senators Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland.The “Black Women in American Politics 2025” report, released by Higher Heights Leadership Fund and the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, documents significant advances for Black women in elected office while highlighting continued underrepresentation at the highest levels of government.

    Black women now hold 401 state legislative seats nationwide, representing 5.4% of all state legislators and 16.2% of all women state legislators. This marks a 67.1% increase from 240 seats in 2014, when the organizations began tracking these statistics.

    The most dramatic change occurred in the U.S. Senate, where two Black women now serve simultaneously for the first time in American history. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware both won open seats in the 2024 election, doubling Black women’s representation in the upper chamber.

    “This year also marks the first time in history that two Black women serve together in the United States Senate,” Alsobrooks and Blunt Rochester wrote in the report’s foreword. “That milestone is not a coincidence; it’s a culmination. It’s the result of investments made, barriers challenged, and generations of Black women who refused to be sidelined.”

    At the congressional level, 29 Black women currently serve as voting members, including 27 in the House and two in the Senate. This represents nearly double the 15 Black women who served in Congress when tracking began in 2014. All current Black congresswomen are Democrats except for the two senators.

    The 2024 election cycle was particularly significant because Vice President Kamala Harris became the first Black woman to head a major-party presidential ticket. Though Harris lost the election, her 107-day campaign raised $81 million in its first 24 hours and nearly doubled Democratic voter enthusiasm, according to the report.

    Black women also made notable gains in municipal leadership. Three new Black women became mayors of major cities: Cherelle Parker in Philadelphia, Sharon Tucker in Fort Wayne, and Barbara Lee in Oakland. Eight Black women now serve as mayors of the nation’s 100 most populous cities, matching their proportion of the U.S. population.

    However, significant representation gaps persist at higher levels. No Black woman has ever served as governor, and Black women remain underrepresented in statewide executive offices. Currently, 10 Black women serve in such positions nationwide, including four lieutenant governors, two attorneys general, two secretaries of state, one auditor, and one controller.

    The report notes that 34 states have never elected a Black woman to statewide executive office. Since 2014, only 25 Black women have ever held such positions across 17 states.

    “In our nation’s 249-year history, a Black woman has never served as governor of a state or as president of the United States,” the senators wrote. “That reality is a stark reminder that our work is not done.”

    The growth in Black women’s representation has occurred almost exclusively among Democratic officeholders. The report documents only seven Black Republican women state legislators nationwide and notes that all Black congresswomen are Democrats.

    State-level representation varies significantly by region. Maryland leads with Black women comprising 18.6% of state legislators, followed by Georgia at 17.4%. Conversely, five states have no Black women in their legislatures: Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

    The report also highlights institutional leadership gains. Twenty Black women now hold state legislative leadership positions, including six who lead their chambers. In Congress, Black women hold over 22% of House Democratic leadership positions.

    Looking ahead, the organizations identify opportunities for continued growth. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, a Republican, is running for governor in 2025 and could become the first Black woman governor in U.S. history if successful. Additionally, over 200 statewide offices will be up for election in 2026.

    This marks the eighth iteration of the annual report series, which began in 2014 and has been published in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2023. The comprehensive analysis tracks Black women’s political participation across federal, state, and local levels, providing the most detailed picture available of their representation in American politics.

    Source link

  • Rates of Admitted Students Who Are Black, Hispanic Have Decreased

    Rates of Admitted Students Who Are Black, Hispanic Have Decreased

    The researchers aimed to show demographic changes across the entire “admissions pipeline.”

    skynesher/E+/Getty Images

    In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to ban affirmative action in college admissions, no one knew exactly what the impact on Black and Hispanic enrollment might be going forward. In fall 2024, the numbers varied substantially by institution; Inside Higher Ed’s analysis of 31 institutions’ enrollment data showed massive drops in Black and Hispanic enrollment at some institutions and less drastic decreases—and even slight increases—at others.

    But enrollment data only tells part of the story. A new report from the Urban Institute, which uses data from 18 colleges and universities, highlights how the demographics of college applicants—and admits—shifted after the court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. While the share of applicants who were Black or Hispanic increased from fall 2023 to fall 2024—by 0.47 and 0.65 percentage points, respectively—the portion who were admitted decreased.

    It marked the first time since at least 2018 that the share of admitted students who were Black had declined; Hispanic students hadn’t seen a drop since 2021, when the share of applicants also declined. White students’ share of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students has shrunk every year since 2018, a trend consistent with the declining number of white high school graduates (and of white Americans in general). White graduates are also the only group that consistently make up a larger percentage of admitted students than applicants.

    Jason Cohn, a higher education and workforce research associate for the Urban Institute and one of the report’s authors, said that these numbers shed more light on the impacts of affirmative action than enrollment figures alone.

    “We’ve seen a lot of enrollment numbers in news articles here and there since last fall. In some cases, they stay the same; in some cases, they change. But I think what these data are showing is that that’s not fully reflective of what might actually be happening,” he said. “One of the big takeaways for me is just how much can be hidden if you only look at the enrollment numbers and aren’t seeing what’s happening in the rest of the admissions pipeline.”

    For this study, the researchers partnered with two organizations, the Association of Undergraduate Education at Research Universities and the University of Southern California’s Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice, to solicit data from a diverse group of 18 research universities (which they did not name). Although the sample is small, they said, it’s consistent with similar research conducted by the College Board, whose sample included about 60 institutions, indicating that the data is likely reflective of broader trends.

    It’s difficult to say definitively that the Supreme Court’s decision caused the decline in the share of admitted students from underrepresented backgrounds. That same class of high school seniors faced other barriers, including the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and delays and errors with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Bryan J. Cook, another author of the report and the Urban Institute’s director of higher education policy, noted that colleges in some states had begun rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at that time, including some programs aimed at recruiting students of color.

    “In this particular analysis, we’re not looking to isolate causation, but I think as we continue to look at this type of thing in future years, I think that’ll help us get a little closer,” Cohn said.

    But Robert Massa, a veteran enrollment professional, said he believes the shifts were likely caused in large part by the end of affirmative action.

    “I’m not at all surprised that Black students have increased their representation in the applicant pool and decreased their representation in the accepted pool, because universities are taking careful steps to make sure they don’t use race in and of itself as criteria in the admissions process,” he said.

    (Edward Blum, the president of SFFA, the anti–affirmative action nonprofit that was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that the organization has no opinion on the study.)

    The researchers plan to dig deeper into the data, analyzing other demographic information, including gender and family income, as well as academic variables such as the standardized test scores and grade point averages of the applicants and admitted students at these institutions.

    One possible hiccup for future research: The report also showed that post-SFFA, the share of applicants who chose not to identify their race increased, from 3.2 percent in 2023 to 5.1 percent in 2024. If that upward trend continues, Cohn said, it might make it “more difficult, over time, to unpack these trends and see who’s being served by the higher education system.”

    Source link

  • College Board cancels award program for high-performing Black and Latino students

    College Board cancels award program for high-performing Black and Latino students

    The College Board this month changed the criteria for its National Recognition Program awards in a move that could shift tens of thousands of scholarship dollars from Black and Latino students to white students.

    Colleges used the awards to recruit and offer scholarships to high-performing students from groups underrepresented in higher education. The award previously recognized academic achievement by students in five categories — Black, Hispanic, Native American, first-generation and those living in rural areas or small towns.

    The racial categories have been eliminated.

    Now, students living in small towns and rural areas can still earn the award if they score in the top 10 percent among all small-town and rural students in their state on the PSAT — a precursor to the SAT that is administered in high schools around the country. The same is true for first-generation students but not for students in underrepresented racial categories.

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    Critics said they were disappointed by the College Board’s decision.

    “They believed racial inequality was something important to address yesterday, and by changing that, they’re implying that it’s not something important to fight for now,” said Rachel Perera, a fellow in government studies at the liberal Brookings Institution. “That’s the heart of the question that’s being debated — although it’s not being debated in explicit terms — does racial discrimination exist?”

    In a statement on its website, the College Board noted the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the use of race in admissions, although the National Recognition Program awards were used for scholarships and recruitment, not admissions.

    “Recent legal and regulatory actions have further limited the utility of these awards for students and colleges,” the statement says. Also, President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear his disapproval of race-conscious policies in higher education, and some states have banned consideration of race in scholarship decisions. 

    In 2023-24, the College Board issued 115,000 recognition awards, and a little less than half were in the racial categories. The previous year there were more than 80,000 awards and the majority were for Black, Hispanic and Native American students. While the College Board doesn’t hand out money itself, universities use it to select students for scholarships. The Board has not maintained a list of which institutions used the racial categories, according to Holly Stepp, College Board’s director of communications.

    The College Board started the program in 1983 to recognize high-performing Hispanic students. In 2020, the other two racial categories and the small town and rural designations were added. First-generation students could win the award starting last year. Small towns could include those with modest incomes or wealthy enclaves like Aspen, Colorado. All students must also have at least a B+ average.

    Related: Cutting race-based scholarships blocks path to college, students say

    While students of all races can now earn the awards, the removal of the racial categories will likely disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic students.

    On average, Asian and white students score higher on PSATs. White students’ average score on the PSAT last year was 994 last year compared with 821 for Black students — a gap of 173 points. Asian students’ average was even higher at 1108 while Hispanic and Native American students averaged 852 and 828 respectively.

    “It’s a move towards race-blind categories when we know that education and access to education isn’t race-blind,” said Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the left-leaning policy and advocacy group EdTrust.

    Some conservatives praised the move, however, arguing that race-conscious scholarship and recruitment programs were ways to get around the Supreme Court’s rulings on affirmative action and that they were a form of reverse discrimination.

    Jonathan Butcher, senior research fellow in education policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he believes that racial discrimination does exist and should be addressed, but that race-conscious education policies were both illegal and ineffective.

    “If you are using racial preferences, you are setting students up for a loss of confidence when they struggle in a situation they’re not prepared for,” Butcher said.

    Related: How did students pitch themselves to colleges after last year’s affirmative action ruling?

    In place of the racial categories, a new designation has been added this year that recognizes students who score in the top 10 percent of their high school on the PSAT.

    Experts say colleges are unlikely to offer scholarships to all students who score in the top 10 percent of every high school in the country, given the cost that would entail. Officials at the University of New Mexico, for example, said they would stop using the College Board designations beginning in the 2026-27 school year.

    “We’re currently analyzing our scholarship strategy, but changes will be made across the board,” said Steve Carr, the university’s director of communications, in an email.

    In 2023-24, the University of New Mexico awarded scholarships based on the College Board designations worth $15,000 each to 149 Black, Hispanic and Native American students.

    The University of Arizona also offered scholarships to students who earned National Recognition Program awards in the racial designations last year.

    “The university was already evaluating its scholarship strategy and will consider the College Board’s announcement as we determine how best to move forward and support our students,” said Mitch Zak, spokesman for the University of Arizona, in an email.

    In addition to the PSAT scores, students are eligible for the College Board award if they score a 3 or higher out of 5 on two Advanced Placement exams taken during their ninth and/or 10th grade year, although many high schools don’t uniformly offer AP courses to freshmen and sophomores.

    “We can’t really have a conversation around merit if we’re not all at the same starting point in terms of what we receive from our K-12 education,” said Del Pilar, “and how we’re able to navigate the test prep environment, or the lack of test prep that certain communities receive.”

    Contact senior investigative reporter Meredith Kolodner at 212-870-1063 or [email protected] or on Signal at merkolodner.04

    This story about the College Board was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link